Comments on: Big Fee Shift in Unsuccessful Copyright Lawsuit To Suppress Unflattering Photo–Katz v. Chevaldina

By: Hoops and Horses

Hoops and Horses — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:26:00 +0000

Philadelphia lawyers are sick statutory-rapists who set up a system whereby they require “law office experience” of their secretaries, experience they can only get in part-time jobs after school, which are given to students…of all-girl catholic schools. I noticed it when I would go home from work and I thought the school day ran until 5:30 because I saw all these uniforms on Chestnut Street.

By: Hoops and Horses

Hoops and Horses — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:21:00 +0000

The only problem here is that there is this “internet legal mafia” that is operating with what it thinks is “protection” from someone very high-level in the government (obviously not or I wouldn’t know, as do others). They systematically attack legal protections like Section 230 which would civilize the internet, then they wind up raking in huge fees and settlements just like arms dealers profiting from war. They have alliances with hackers and cyberthugs who will bully and discredit anything that gets in their way, and they openly associate online to the extent that even a third-grader can connect the dots. They have made the internet such a lawless environment that it is actually better to just do business in the “real world.” I can assure you that when these online “free speech advocates” get a dose of their own medicine, they will whine louder than an Elk finally caught by a wolfpack.

By: Court of Appeals Rejects Attempt to Use Copyright To Censor Online Speech | IPFrontline

Mon, 21 Sep 2015 04:01:41 +0000

[…] attempt to use copyright to censor online criticism has only brought more (and more) attention to his abhorred photograph—a classic example of the Streisand effect. And we’re glad […]

By: Court of Appeals Rejects Attempt to Use Copyright To Censor Online Speech | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Fri, 18 Sep 2015 21:16:30 +0000

[…] attempt to use copyright to censor online criticism has only brought more (and more) attention to his abhorred photograph—a classic example of the Streisand effect. And we’re glad […]

By: curtisneeley

curtisneeley — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 02:20:00 +0000

This ruling helps prevent PLAINTIFFS from using legal defense fees to transform Title 17 into a censor or hecklers veto. Title 17 does not, however, allow protection of personal honor. The U.S. never recognized the need for humans to control personal communications after fixed like Great Britain did in first 1734 and assigning this IP right to the spouse for life in 1766. There is no fundamental human right to be shy. Protection of human dignity is not allowed in the U.S. This explains why the web was invented in Britain but was monetized first by GOOG because GOOG could never develop where control of personal information is a human right and where a right to be forgotten has always existed but was ignored.